The Stages Of Change

The undertones of the title (and indeed the day to day reality of life behind the step-points of the OP) make it sound like there must be a BIG struggle involved.Perhaps the fact that that notion is pushed high and low is the reason..

quote:

---

1) Why.. the relapse rate (is) so high in these types of programs?

---

Is it not commonly accepted that it really really is difficult to kick a smoking, heroin, alcohol, cocaine, food, porn, whatever-addiction? If so then 33% success rate of AA (success = folk who don't relapse) is indeed success.- Why do so many people involved in the struggle to summit Everest fail to summit Everest? Is it not simply because the struggle proves too much for the majority who make the attempt? I can't see that as a failure of the Everest programme. Necessarily. It depends on the claims of the programme I suppose.The AA makes no bones about it; the programme relies on an application of a persons own will. Essential is the application of willpower.. in other words. Mores the point; it involves the perpetual application of willpower. One day at a time ...And when you run out of will-power-fuel you ... relapse.- That presumes there is much of a process of change to speak of. Is there? Perhaps a release from addiction can occur in seconds.Does it take all that long to become addicted? AA reckon 2-60 years for alcohol - apparently. Quite a margin of error.- Correction (at root level): relapse occurs because the effects following the drugs intake (scratching of itch) is considered preferable to the percieved negative effects of the last dose of the drug wearing off (creation of itch).Willpower might act to suspend the desire to scratch - but unless the reason for scratching is removed, the desire to scratch will remain forever. One day at a time.[Anyone see the circular reasoning that lies behind every drugs trap? (whatever the drug: smoking, alcohol, porn, work]If withdrawal from drug X causes an itch then you either recognise itch-to-be-a-natural-consequence-of-lack-of-drug-X OR you scratch the itch by imbibing the drug.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Apparantly, Allen Carrs Easyway program claims dramatic success rates of over 50%. I won't knock the guy, but is it possible you could share a bit of his philosophy with us without our having to pay $425.00 for the seminar??

Hi Phat, you directed me to this thread in your "drugs are bad" thread. I just now got a chance to look at it. Because these programs never approach the issue from the perspective of the person using. In other words, "why are you using?"They deal with the chemical dependency rather than the cause of, or the reason why, the person began to use in the first place.Once the person is detoxed and the "chemical dependency" is removed the person is deemed cured, so to speak. Then they are placed back into their original living situation that caused them to spiral into the stressful depression that made them turn to drugs in the first place.Too much emphasis is placed on the drugs themselves. There is a war on drugs but there isn't a war on poverty...that to me is disturbing. The system creates the dependencies and yet makes no effort to better the conditions for those more prone to falling victim. A last ditch effort is then made with programs like AA, where people are taught how to detach themsleves from the need of drugs/alcohol, but nothing can really be done when the person continues to live in the same conditions that drove them to the drugs/alcohol.Thus, the word relapse become part of the steps, because there's really no way around not relapsing. And those who run the programs already predict a large amount will relapse because they know that there is no chance of them not relapsing.The current living conditions for humans suck - it's very stressful and people get depressed. Thus, they become addicted to one or more forms of removing themselves from that type of situation - drugs/alcohol/cigarettes(to a lesser degree). This seems like it was quoted right out of the pages of a program. In my opinion it's meaningless.The real issues are how people are forced to live and the sub-standard conditions that, for the most part, is ignored and blamed on drugs. This not only includes the less fortunate, this also includes the rich who have nothing of real meaning in their materialistic lives and turn to drugs for some excitment. Drugs are a distraction from both of those situations.However, for the most part, dependency can be removed when the cause is removed, and nobody can make these causes go away better than our government. But they won't. And people will continue to fall victim to drugs by circumstance, and they'll relapes because of the same circumstances. Programs like AA will be promoted and the "war on drugs" will give the illusion that the heart of the problem is being dealt with, but that is all bullshit. It's illusional and gives a false sense that things are being done about it.Mean while, the reality of the situation is that people will continue to suffer from a system designed to suck the life out of them; a system designed to drag them into debt and into slave labor; people work longer hours, for less money while the cost of living increases beyond their means. It's no wonder people get stressed out, fall into depression and disattach themselves from their normal life. They then fall victim to the momentary relief that drugs/alcohol provide. Once they build an addiction on the basis of a shitty life they will never be out of harms way until their shitty life gets better. Alleviating the stress and depression and in turn removing the actual reasons for them becoming addicted to begin with.Here's Doug Stanhope's take on it - (one of my favorite comics and a cool dude):And a follow up to it:And just 'cause I know you, and others on this site, are from the previous generation :Enjoy,- Oni

---

If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little.
~George Carlin

I don't think poverty causes drug usage anymore than being right-handed causes cancer. You'd have to consider just how many people in high-level positions who have no monetary issues also suffer from chemical dependancy and depression. It's the human condition and it afflicts everyone equally without prejudgment. What vague and inconspicuous "system" are you referring to? Even supposing this is true what is supposed to be done? Develop a drug habit and have Uncle Sam pamper your ass? Sounds like a sweet deal. There'd be 500 million more drug addicts by tomorrow with a plan like that. It's always been this way, only people have it vastly better today than their ancestors who didn't know from one minute to the next whether or not you and everyone you hold dear would die by any number of causes. Life is a struggle. Whether that is by design or circumstance is irrelevant to how human beings are both blessed and cursed by their intelligence. We're the only animals cognizant of how shitty it all can be."Life is pain... And we have to scrape out the joy every chance we get." --Rod Kimball--Ironic how a proverb can be found even in a cheesy B comedy. How is anyone forced to live in any condition? You are in control of your destiny, not the government. Unless of course you live somewhere like North Korea. "The government can make all our problems go away." Famous last words, commrade.If you gave a crackhead 12 million dollars right now, they'd be 12 million dollar crackheads, not drug free. Please refer to the myriad of billion dollar artists and bands over the years who have died because of their drug problems. No one forced them in to a life of rockin'! And perhaps something a little closer to home for you... Half the cast of SNL?The problem isn't as easy as saying it's where you live or how you live. There is no single cause for why people become drug addicts. Everyone's lives are stressful. I was dirt, dirt, dirt, dirt poor for most of my adult life. The way I look at it is no one placed me in that situation but me, and at no point was I drug addict because of it.Been to Section 8 housing lately? Government program... plenty of drugs. The government can't make humans with freewill do anything they aren't willing to do for themselves. You could dump a trillion dollars in to the problem, but it ultimately comes down to each individuals will. No one will extricate you from the muck and mire of life better than you and no one for damn sure cares more about it than yourself.If drug addicts are victims of circumstance then they are also co-conspirators in their own misery.

---

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

Hi Hyro, I believe you misunderstood the meaning behind what you quoted. It simply means that a huge financial effort is made in the "war on drugs" but no effort is made to put forth a "war on poverty."Which I feel will make a bigger impact towards the current war against drugs than the current measures being used in the campaign towards a "war on drugs."Here's the current War on Drugs clock. It's a huge waste of money that could be used in other ways that would be more effective in actually reducing, not drug use, but drug addiction.But either way it doesn't matter. More so the point was that there should be a war on poverty and not so much a meaningless war on drugs, which barely benefits anyone. Except for those working in the fields that deal with the war on drugs. Someone has a job because there is a war on drugs, while a huge amount go without any jobs at all.Let me also add that when I mean a "war on poverty" I don't mean to simply giving money to the poor; I mean like helping companies stay in the US instead of going overseas and placing Americans on unemployment. I don't mean we give money to individuals and financially place them in the middle class bracket; I mean creating jobs so that people can get out of poverty on their own. Funding the public school system (to include after shool care and free tutoring). Free healthcare to alleviate the burden of medical insurance and prescription medicine (this sadly affects the elderly the most. Also sad is the fact that the elderly are the fastest demographic becoming poor). Source.

quote:

---

In a time of economic downturn, elderly people living on the edge are disproportionately affected, many of them pushed into poverty as others worry about their stock portfolios and shrinking retirement plans.

​

Because they live on fixed incomes, seniors are more likely to be affected by higher food and energy prices. Compounding the problem, programs to help the elderly poor often see their funding cut in down times, reducing their ability to reach people.

---

There should be an actual "war on poverty" but there isn't. However, there is billions being spent on a war on drugs that is not working. The proverbial "rat race." The system of debt and slave labor, which is exactly what most Americans work for, to pay off a debt (ie. school, morgage, cars, kids college, toys, etc). Couple that with the monotony of everyday life and the bordom of work...it's enough to drive anyone into a drug or alcohol addiction.This obviously does not describe everyones working conditions, but it covers most of middle America's life. - Hey, you know whos never had a heart attack? Hugh Hefner. Guess who did? The guy that works the nightshift at Costco. Guess why? First, no there wouldn't an increase in drug addictions -(I don't like the word habit. Shit I have a habit of doing drugs but I'm far from being an "addict.").But to answer the question, no, I don't mean people who develop a drug addiction should be pampered. I mean to provide the means to better peoples living conditions. I'm not trying to reform the whole system, like change the way people make a living. I understand that the "rat race" is just a part of our system, but more can be done to better the living situations of those at the poverty level, so that their children can come up and out of the poverty level. If this was done 30 years ago, the current generations coming from poverty would have a better chance at getting out than they do now. This is where the money should be allocated - money that already exists and is being misspent. I feel you're short changing your experience as a conscious organism in this universe. We have never been this "aware" or this "conscious" of our lives and the grandeur of this existance. Shit, 100 years ago there were still Witch Hunts. In some parts of the world they are still going on Fawza Falih.

quote:

---

Fawza Falih Muhammad Ali is a Saudi woman who made international headlines after she was condemned to death for practicing witchcraft in 2006. As of August 2008, she was still facing execution.

---

You're right, we are aware of how shitty it is, and yet we do nothing about it knowing full well that we can. We are just so divided these days that a group effort will never be made. Survival of the fittest has become "survival of the fittest individual by any means necessary," which is not the halmark for this type of an aware and conscious human being, IMO. If we do feel that we have some-sort of higherachy above the animals, then maybe we should act like it.We did not evolve to sit in cubicles and stare at monitors for 8 hours a day. That shit ain't livin. Drugs and alcohol seem to be a distraction from that monotony, and then becomes an addiction due to those circumstances. Not in all cases of course. Hmmm, what B comedy?[ABE] I did some research, I can't beleive I forgot Hot Rod. I actually liked.[ABE]Really? Ok.Try getting a decent job without a degree - (now you're in debt from school loans so you gotta get a job to start paying that back. Oh and lets not forget that chunk removed for taxes, medical and social security).Next step in the "American Dream" is to buy a house and start a family - (now you got a 15-30 year morgage, probably refinanced once or twice, so now they've secured themselves a worker for a good 30 years). A worker that is limited on the amount he/she can complain about. What's the current euphamism? "We should just be thankful we have a job"...? Bullshit.Add to that, kids, cars, future college tuition, and other toy one has (ie. boat, jetski, etc) - (all that shit amounts to debt and a burden to have to work for a long time to support it, because very few fully get rid of it).I'd say the system as a whole is in control of your life. Aided by the needs of the government, that comes before the needs of the people. Viva la revolucion!I'd say "we can make all our problems go away'" if we took the time out to realize what the actual problems are, rather than the problems created by a system of greed. I agree, but that is not the point. Like I stated above, the point is not to hand out money to a single individual, the point is to fund those institutions that will provide a way out of poverty - long term, not some quick-fix, either. Trust me I know, this is one of the reason I'm an atheist. Jimmy Hendrix, dead. Janis Joplin, dead. Kurt Cobain, dead. Britney Spears...? ---- Really, God? Really? Seriously though, and I've had this discussion before, the amount of artists is very low. Don't think about just the famous bands, think about every single person who plays music, acts at any level, paints at any level, sings, dances, etc. The amount who die is very minimal compared to the amount that live and have never even taken a drug. We just hear about the famous people and it sticks in our brains. - Again, another part of the programming of American's minds.Aritst die of drugs just as much as any other job in America. You just don't hear about the guy at Kinkos who OD on meth because his life, in the eyes of Americans, is of little to no value. Kurt Cobain, that's top fuck'n news!And it leaves an impression in our minds that connects drug use to artists. It's an illusional connection and programmed into our minds from a young age. I agree, but statistically the majority of drug addicts come from poverty. Why? here: Drug use and Poverty.

quote:

---

Drug use is also one reason why the poor, which in the United States comprise thirteen percent of the population, cannot improve their living conditions. Drug intervention experts say that drugs are expensive, but they are actually being made cheaper by street dealers by reducing their purity. Now affordable, the poor starts buying these drugs instead of buying food, since most street drugs are known appetite suppressants. In a way they see this habit as actually saving money.

---

I agree. I think the only difference we have is in what we mean by "muck and mires" of life.To me, sitting in a cubicle for 30 years is a horrible prison, and a slow fuck'n death - of both your life and your creativity. I feel the illusion of the "American Dream" places a burden on people to strive towards a goal that is really just a trap. I feel that working 8-10 hours a day, 5-6 days a week, to enjoy 1-2 days off, for the purpose of making someone else richer is depressing. But I understand that that is the way it is. People are going to be stressed and burdened with obligations that they don't necessarily want. And...that is why drug/alcohol addictions aren't going anywhere, and relapses are inevitable.Interesting points though, Hyro. I look forward to your rebuttle.*And by the way, SNL only lost 2 cast memebrs to drugs/alcohol - (John Belushi and Chris Farley) - unless you count Phil Hartmans death. He was murdered by his wife who was allegedly on drugs. And both Belushi and Farley had a weight issue as well. The wieght issues, stress and depression, yes depression at that level, is what lead to their individual deaths. The drugs were the releif from all that.But see, that's what I meant by the "illusion." You felt SNL lost a lot of cast memebers due to drugs because the news glorified 2 deaths. 118 cast memebrs in 31 years and only 2, from very different time frames, died of drugs/alcohol related issues. That's normal for any job.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

---

If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little.
~George Carlin

I can agree with that to a degree because the war on drugs is in many ways futile. I'm on the frontline of this war on drugs, working for the Dept of Homeland Security. That gives me a front row seat in to the inner workings. While I advocate the immediate de-criminalization of marijuana, I have also seen the incredible power wielded because of drugs.It seems to be a futile battle. They are becoming so ingenius as to how they deliver their products and avoid detection, some of which is classified or sensitive information that I cannot relay. I'm sure you understand.It could also be argued that if drugs were legal, it would not allow cartels to come in to power. The only way that could be true was if companies legally manufactured these drugs. I don't see pharmacies manufacturing meth anytime soon, as it serves no medicinal purpose. How would it work, though? How do you fight poverty when most people impoverish themselves? Yes, but a system imlpies that there are people working to see people in debt purposely. Nobody who wants your money wants you in debt. They just want the debt collected. This nation works on a laissez-faire style of capitalism which attempts to limit government interference with manifest destiny and a free market. That said, they should and do have regulatory power to oversee the overall market to protect the average citizen from predators.I don't know how or who would improve anyone else's living conditions other than the person who wants the improvement. What suggestions do you have? There is an incredible sense of self-entitlement with Americans that, even as one, I can't relate to. All I can say is if you want to better your situation, you have to do that yourself. There are no shortages of programs out there that try and help people better themselves. But it is hard work. It's not easy, just like life isn't easy but you have to find a way to survive. Yes, it sounds god-awful to me too. I guess it's like one of those port-a-poty cleaners... It's a shitty job, but somebody's gotta do it! And because money is involved, many people consider themselves blessed to have any job at all.Anywhoo, speaking of work, I gotta run. We'll chat later!I've got to get back to class... Respond to the rest later!

---

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

What do you mean by this? Do you mean the kid who is bron into the inner city by a single mother who's working three jobs just to keep a roof over his head and some food on his plate? The kid who can't get a good education because the good teachers aren't willing to dodge bullets at the chalkboard, and so can't get into college or get a good job, and so ends up using the only available path to money, drugs? What did this kid do that impoverished himself? What do you think he could have done to better his position considering the odds stocked, piled, and pushing against him? My suggestion is a basic level of subsistence that is due to any and all people by virtue of their being a person. They should have a roof over their head, food, education, and necessary medical care. If these things are good enough for some people and they do nothing to get better circumstances, so be it. If someone wants more, they need to work hard and strive for it.How do we do this? Well, onifre has a good suggestion, take the billions spent on the war on drugs and invest in more community shelters with better facilities, more healthy food for people living there, and universal healthcare for starters.

I agree.I also find it counter productive to make a product illegal, then spend billions of dollars fighting the repercussions of it's illegality. When making it legal would give them(the gov) control of the product and relinquish the current power that the drug cartels have - since they basically control the market. By the same token though, we don't see pharm companies making alcohol or cigs either. So it doesn't necessarily have to fall into the hands of pharm companies. For cocaine and marijuana it would simply fall into the hands of the farming industry, which could use the work.For meth, crack, heroin, etc, IMO, it becomes a grey area. But then again those seem to be produced here in the states, and not imported from elsewhere. Except of course for heroin since the opium comes from the Middle East. But crack and meth are not produced by outside drug cartels, they are home grown and can be controlled by our current drug inforcers.I also believe the legalizing of marijuana, making it readily available, and also of cocaine and MDMA, would reduce the amount of meth/crack users. This is obviously speculation, but who knows what type of positive results can come out of it if it never gets tried. I agree with what Perdition writes. I'll also give another example.The thousands of autoworkers that got terminated due to, not only the stock market crash, but when the manufactures leave the US to build cars in other countries. Some of the towns, if not most, rely solely on the auto industry. The towns are ruined and the workers lost everything - homes, cars, finances, etc. Basically, they became poor over-night. And it didn't have to be that way. It was out of their control. They were at the mercy of their companies, which were at the mercy of the market, which is at the mercy of the federal reserve and our government. Maybe that's the way you're interpreting it, but it's not what I mean.Getting into debt is part of the process. It is almost forced on you. You must go to college, get student loans. You then get a job, by a house, start a family, etc. All of these things place you further into debt. You spend most of your adult life working to pay bills and pay off debts that you aquired by just living your normal life.Note, I'm not talking about extras (ie. boats, jetskies, summer homes, flat screen tv's, 100 thousand dollar cars, etc). I'm just talking about an education, a home and a means of transportation - add to that your children and their needs - like college for them.These are just the basics of living. Yet these basics place you into debt. There's no way around that. So instead of following a dream, or doing what you love, people sit in a cubicle and sell insurance for 30 years. Or work the nightshift in a factory until they close it and you're out on your ass. Or any of the other endless, meanless jobs that are void of any real purpose and satisfaction. This is slave labor. This is a type of control that goes beyond many peoples ability to surpass, especially those who never got an equal chance to begin with. And more importantly, this is what drives addictions. Fair enough, but when the deck is stacked against you at all angles, it can become impossible, no matter how much the person may want to better themselves.As an example, lets take this situation:A person arrested for possession of marijuana at the age of 20, sent ot jail for 5 years, released back into society with no education and now a criminal record, for something as pathetic as weed, has very little chance to make it. Not that they can't, but lets be honest, the majority will not. They then turn to selling drugs, theft, and addiction due to depression. Get sent to jail again, this time for 10 years, released now at the age of 40, now has almost no chance at making it.And it would have all been avoided had marijuana been legal. They could have gotten an education, become a productive member of society(whatever that is), perhaps raised a family and never built an addiction.The addiction is avioded and that persons children now have a real chance at making it.Sometimes "bettering your situation" is out of peoples control. There are no programs that work for the poor. If they did, we would see results. There are no results, poverty is on the rise, as is crime and drug addictions.It's easy to take the dismissive approach a say "if these people want it they can get it just like I did." But that way of thinking is ignorant of the actual conditions and problems that those at the poverty level are actually facing. They are victims of circumstance, not all, but most. What is needed is actual concern, real solutions, funding, government support, etc.We can't just set up programs to deal with the affects of poverty (ie. rehab, welfare, section 8), those things do absolutely nothing, it's a quick fix. What is needed are programs and funding to alleviate the conditions facing those who are at the poverty level, to give them the means to get out, on their own. Real, long-term solutions can include: universal health care, better public schools, with current books, good teachers, after school programs, free tutoring, free public transportation, loans for new home buyers, etc.An analogy would be like finding a crack going down the side of your wall and just patching it with concrete, rather than replacing the blocks and avoiding further structural damage. Maybe you get lucky and nothing further happens, but more than likely, your wall will progressively get worse.There are plenty of quick fix solutions, but they, like the concrete on your wall, will only hold for a little while till the wall comes crashing down.*I'll wait for your next reply to address the other stuff.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

---

If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little.
~George Carlin

No, which is why I said most and not all. This is what we know about the real world: In order to have these things payed for by the government, people have to work and apportion a part of their paycheck towards paying taxes. No GDP equals no taxes equals no subsidies equals a bankrupt society equals massive death. It's fundamental economics. It all sounds nice and sweet and proper on paper, but such as it is with most things, implementation is always the hardest part. Anything less is vacuous platitudes meant to appease a crowd. Politicians have been elected on platitudes for centuries. Smart people want results. Dumb people settle for a phony smile from the sycophant and an IOU. So now we have crack-addicted, impoverished people who live in free shelters. How is the latter better than the former? We already have those things. I lived next to a halfway house for the last two years. It was halfway between a squat and a brothel, not to mention a great place to network for the solicitation of narcotics. A nation with the 3rd highest population in the world will struggle even worse to fund universal healthcare than most or all European countries. Free healthcare is anything but free. Tax-burdened citizens have to be taxed even more than they already are to compensate for those who milk the system.I don't think people really understand the scope and magnitude of what it would take to accomplish universal healthcare in the United States. I caution any one to look at it further and make a truly informed decision before hastily voting for something like that.

---

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

Who said anything about no GDP? If we funnel the money being wasted on the "war on drugs" we could fund a lot of these programs with absolutely no increase in taxes, no shortfall in money (over what we have now). I don't see how this leads to the downfall of western civilization as we know it. Perhaps if you can explain the steps from "redirect the money we're spending to more worthwhile projects" to "bankrupt society and massive death." I'm missing the part in the middle. We do what they're doing in Sweden (I believe) and what they're considering in Australia. We decriminalize the drugs, create places where people can get a metered, measured dose of clean and relatively safe drugs along with counselling and a community of people in the same situation. It would help the people who want to quit, and would make it safer for those who don't yet. It would also help reduce the drug cartels' power and the gang wars. Newsflash: we're already taxed for the people who milk the system. The government pays hospitals for treating un/underinsured people who come into the emergency room because they have no other recourse when they get sick or hurt. We also pay for the people who can't afford to go to the hospital when they start feeling something's wrong, so they wait until it's life-threatening and thus more expensive to pay for.I know this plan isn't perfect, but then I don't have acces to the best economists in the country and a think tank at my beck and call, but it seems to me that if the government paid for our medical costs the way an HMO does now, meaning the hospital/doctor send the bill to Uncle Sam, we could cut out the HMOs who's job is to make money, thus charging you premiums and monthly fees even when not being used, raise taxes to the same amount (or less) that people are paying for medical coverage (perhaps we could have employers pay this, as they do currently for medical coverage on employees). It woulodn't end up costing us, as consumers, any more and in fact, could save us money. Everyone could go to whatever doctor they wanted, rather than having to pick and choose who the HMO accepts, if you're on vacation across the country and fall, you can go to any hospital and get it covered, rather than being out of network and paying for it yourself. People who are poor and can't afford coverage under the current system would now be covered and could get yearly check-ups, thus becoming a bit healthier and less prone to clog the emergency rooms. The aforementioned ERs would then be able to focus on the actual emergencies rather than long lines of people who have the siffles but can't get a real appointment. Doctor's would still be paid the same, so they wouldn't decide that it's better to run to one of those other countries that doesn';t have universal coverage...though those are all third-world countries, so maybe that's not a big deal.So...pick apart my proposal, it's the only way to make it stronger. Note: saying "You expect the government to handle this type of program efficiently?" isn't a good argument because while it might not be 100% efficient, is the current process efficient? No. Can the government run other large programs successfully? Yes. The military, the mail, the SSI program and Medicare come to mind. ANd perhaps best of all...all other first world nations, and some that aren't, have successfully run programs like this for years or in some cases decades, and in those countries, the people are foten healthier and live longer while spending less money on healthcare, sounds just about right to me.

No, you don't have to go to college necessarily. Does it help? Yes. But there are different avenues. Think of it this way: If everyone went to college, what would separate you from the other guy? Nothing. Besides there are trades that can't be taught in college. College to a plumber, mechanic, constructionman, etc is useless to their foremans.There are also other ways of going to school without monetarily paying the debt. The military sends officers to school. How you pay off the debt is working as an officer for a minimum of three years. That's not too bad of a gig.But you have to pay for your education, of course. The professors and IT personnel and so on have to be payed somehow. You are receiving an education. It's not free. They are getting payed for a service. Having to pay bills is not paying debt unless you live beyond your means. I'm not disagreeing with you that it is tough and that most people just keep their heads above water. I lived from paycheck to paycheck for all of my adult life. For the first time in my life I'm finally able to save a little. I usually have about a grand left over now between paychecks. For me, that's a lot, if that helps give a perspective on it. Cars are expensive. Very few people have the ability to pay everything off all at once. This is when a line of credit is a good thing. It only gets out of control when one allows it to get out of control. It's not slave labor if you are free to leave whenever you want. There are many people who consider themselves blessed to have any job at all. I was out of work for over 6 months. That was probably the worst time of my life. As for following your dream, not everyone can follow their childhood dreams with a Peter Pan syndrome. And some do whatever it takes to follow their dream. Who was it on the Wild West Comedy Roadshow who in between busing tables gave his skit? I think that's awesome. If you think about it the most satisfying things in life are the difficult things that you've overcome.Sorry I can't finish the rest now. I'll try and get to it sometime this weekend. With that, have a great weekend. If you have any gigs coming, break a leg!

---

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

Doug Stanhope is a funny guy!In case we are drifting off topic, I remind everyone that the subject of my thread is The Stages Of Change. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Hi Phat, I answered specific questions of yours in Message 18. I believe, since you asked the questions, the answers are on topic....if you wish to address it.- Oni

So many questions and so many more to follow! Your question brings up several sociological questions as well.Such as....1) What is the purpose of our lives here on the third rock? Is there even a purpose? Do we seek to help improve each generation that comes after us or do we simply smoke a few joints with them on the porch and laugh about stupid shit that has no meaning and no useful relevance? (I don't mean to pick on pot here, Onifre..I know too well the feeling of relaxation that it offers apart from the modern day techno rat race.)2) On one extreme we have fanatical religious zealots who keep their kids away from useful education that will help advance science, technology, and modern culture. On the other hand we have the Amish. Anyone care to critique their simple life and way?3) This whole God thing. Is it ridiculous to believe in God? Is it necessary? Must all modern life require evidence and successful critical analysis? Is it ever possible for the human animal to understand the next step we take before we take it or is there mythos and mystery that still arises within our beliefs?

Hi Phat, I would say our purpose is what we make it. I don't think there is some outside purpose thrust upon us, rather we decide what we want out of our lives and how we want to be remembered once we're gone and strive for that. This would depend on each person's perspective and beliefs. Personally, I want to try and improve the generations that come after me...but that doesn't preclude sitting on the porch with them and passing a joint now and then. There are a number of Amish communities around my neck of the woods, and I have to say, I greatly respect them and thier culture. They don't proselytize, they don't try and make you feel bad about that black cord connected to your house, in fact, they often go out of their way to help you if you need help. I could never give up my sweet, sweet electricity, TV and computer.As for forcing this life on their kids...I seem to recall hearing that the Amish let their kids go out and experience the world when they reach adulthood, and give them the option of coming back or staying out. Now, one could say that unleashing an Amish person on the world could scare the hell out of someone who isn't exposed to the stuff we trake for granted, but I haven't heard of stories of Amish kids breaking down and going crazy (though I'm sure there are some out there). I would say the desire to believe is understandable, but I honestly can't understand the actual believing part. It just seems like such an unfounded leap of illogic that I can't quite wrap my head around it. Definitely not. I present myself as exhibit A. Must it? No. Should it? I think so, but I would hazard a guess that you disagree with me here. Of course, the level of evidence required for belief is directly proportional to the unusualness and import of the claim. I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you talking about our next technological or social advances and whether we can understand the ramifications of each before we undertake them? Then I would say no, we can't see all the consequences, but that doesn't mean we're leaping with out looking at all.If you mean in an evolutionary or spiritual sense, then I would say we don't have a lot of control over it, either we'll "advance" or we won't.We have a lot of disagreements, Phat, but I very much like reading your posts and responding. I think you're similar to me, though on different sides of the theological fence, we're both asking questions and trying to find answers, which is refreshing.